learning

“PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE”

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

Let’s suppose you decided to run a marathon. How would you prepare for a 26.2 mile running race? You’d probably create a schedule that called for runs of different distances, some of just two or three miles, quite a few 5-10 miles runs, and at least one of about 20 miles. Maybe you’d join a running club or seek out others who were preparing for that particular marathon. You’d think about your diet and your sleep patterns. You might even visit the actual course, just to get a feel for what was to come.

In short, to get ready to run a marathon, you would do whatever seemed necessary to simulate the actual race.

Now imagine that you’ve been cast in a play. How would you prepare? You would set aside time to memorize your lines, and perhaps you would ask a friend or a family member to give you your cues. At some point, you’d join the cast for a reading, then a walk-through, and finally lots of rehearsals. You would need to be aware of your inflection, your facial expressions, and your body language…but also of the team-building process.

In short, to prepare to act on stage, you would do whatever seemed necessary to simulate the actual on-stage performance.

Now let’s think about preparing to live in a free society, a democracy. What would be a sensible approach to preparing young people for a world in which they are generally free to decide what to wear, when to speak up and when to remain silent, what to say, when to eat, how to work with others, and so on? What’s the best way to prepare young people to carefully examine propositions, instead of automatically saying ‘Yes’ or robotically doing what someone tells them to do?

Should they, to get ready to be successful in a democratic society, actually practice democracy while they are growing up?

Right now, we don’t allow children to practice democracy, not in schools anyway. In fact, with the exception of our prison system, public schools are the most undemocratic institutions in our society. Even the branches of the military offer choices to those who enlist, but American public schools tell students (and teachers too, for that matter) where to be and when to be there, when to eat, and what to wear. Most public schools teach students to regurgitate information, not to think critically or to question. Schools are set up to sort, not to individualize. Their basic question about each child is “How Smart Are You?” which they seek to answer by subjecting children to a constant battery of standardized (and most often multiple-choice) tests.

Perhaps our schools are anti-democratic to make it easier for the adults. Perhaps because long ago we adopted the Prussian education model: lectures to children grouped by age. Or perhaps because we adults haven’t had much experience with democracy in our own lives.

Could public schools actually be ‘democratic’ in nature? Could a system of mass education ask a fundamentally different question about each child, “How Are You Smart?” and then adapt the pedagogy to fit a child’s needs, aptitudes, and inclinations?

Not only is it possible; it’s essential going forward, if we are going to rebuild America after Trump.

This is not an argument for letting children do whatever they want, whenever they want. That’s chaos, and no one–not even the kids–wants that. Instead, it calls for thoughtful practice, cooperation, an end to age-segregation, lots of project-based learning, and a focus on social and emotional learning.

Here’s an example that may shock you: Letting students make the rules for classroom behavior. That’s democracy in its purest form, and it can work, although it’s rarely tried. I’d wager to say every elementary school classroom I visited in my 41 years of reporting had a poster listing the rules for classroom behavior. Almost always laminated, these posters generally included obvious rules like “Listen Carefully,” “Follow Directions,” and “Raise Your Hand When You Want to Say Something.”

best 'class rules'

These posters were mass-produced, store-bought, glossy, and laminated. No editing possible, and no thought required. I imagine that on the first day of school, the teacher would read the rules aloud and then point to the poster whenever things got loud or rowdy.

“Now, children, remember Rule 4. No calling out unless I call on you.”

But occasionally the ubiquitous poster would be hand-made, clearly the work of students. If I asked the teacher for an explanation, the answer went something like this:

“On the first day of school I always ask my students what sort of classroom they wanted to spend the year in? What should be the rules? It takes a few days to develop the rules. Sometimes I present alternatives, such as “What if someone knows the answer to a question? Should they just yell it out, or should they raise their hand and wait to be called on?”

Or I might ask them “If one of you has to use the bathroom, should you just get up and walk out of class? Or should we have a signal? And what sort of signal should we use?”

It should not surprise you to learn that the students invariably came up with reasonable rules much like those on the laminated posters: Listen, Be Respectful, Raise Your Hand, Be Kind, and so forth. But there was a difference, teachers and principals told me: When students create the rules, they owned them and were more likely to adhere to them.

Schools can practice democracy in other ways. The adults in charge can give students more say in what they study. Again, not carte blanche but thoughtfully personalized. That means taking the time, early on, to figure out what students are interested in and then using those interests to see that they learn to read with comprehension, work with numbers, speak in public, and work well with others.

Of course, students should not get to make all the decisions about what they’re studying. After all, a central purpose of school is the transmission of knowledge, and so the basics are also part of the deal. Young children need to learn spelling rules (“I before E, except after C”), the multiplication tables, how to divide and carry, and other basics. They need to know that letters have sounds associated with them (i.e., Phonics and Phonemic Awareness). Someone has to teach them that, if you put an E at the end of words like ‘ton,’ the O sound changes from ‘short’ to ‘long.’

That democratic step–giving students power over their learning– will make teaching easier and more enjoyable. When I was a high school English teacher many years ago, my students were supposed to write ‘themes’ based on ‘Macbeth,’ ‘All Quiet on the Western Front,’ and whatever other plays or novels they were told to read. No choices–just rules from on high. However, if I were teaching high school English today, I would try to ask each student to identify three or four things they were curious about. Then I would spend a few minutes with each student, getting that list down to one topic for them to write about. I’d ask for a 1-page ‘memo’ of their thoughts about how they would approach the topic, followed a week or so later by an outline.

When I discovered that some students shared an interest in the same general topic, I would connect them and urge them to share their pursuit of knowledge.

Because I would be looking at drafts of their work, the chances of them using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to write their papers or downloading someone else’s work from the internet would be minimized.

Why not ask students to create a webpage where essays could be shared with students and the community at large? After all, pride of publication is a great motivator!

Math teachers could invite students to create word problems that reflect their own interests. A youngster interested in farming oysters might create problems that provide data about the cost of ‘seed,’ the rate of loss, the time involved in transferring the ‘seed’ as it begins to mature, the labor costs involved in harvesting. What’s the rate of return on investment if…..?

I also believe young people should be deeply involved in figuring out how their efforts will be measured. It makes no sense to wait for end-of-the-year bubble test results or for teachers to arbitrarily say ‘This passes” or “This doesn’t.” Teachers and students should assess progress frequently, take a clear-headed look at the results, and adapt accordingly.

As in a democratic society, choices in schools have consequences, and students could play a role in developing that system as well.

Rebuilding public education after the ravages of the Trump presidency should be recognized as a great opportunity. I am convinced that our rigidly undemocratic school system, with its tracking, constant testing, and bias in favor of the elite, undoubtedly contributed to Trump’s victories in 2016 and 2024. After all, living in an autocracy for 180 days a year, for twelve or thirteen years, seems to have produced millions of adults who are susceptible to, and comfortable with, autocrats and autocracy.

Creating schools that actually practice democracy will produce a more informed and more thoughtful electorate. That’s essential, today more than ever.

“A Third of Teachers Are Terrorists”

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

The US has nearly 3.6 million K-12 teachers, and another 1.5 million college teachers. One-third of 5.1 million is 1.7 million. Who knew that we have 1,700,000 terrorists in our classrooms!

I certainly had no idea things were that bad, and I’m kicking myself for not knowing. After all, I spent more than 67 years in American classrooms, as a student, a teacher, a parent, and a reporter. I must have interviewed and maybe even socialized with thousands of these terrorists, and I didn’t have a clue.

My 4th grade teacher yelled a lot and banged desks (and some ears too), so I supposed she “terrorized” us, but I don’t think that’s what the accuser had in mind.

I can think of one other possible example of ‘terrorism’ in the classroom: My 10th grade English teacher, Mr. McKinley, would deliberately make mistakes when he wrote stuff on the blackboard and then erupt in (faux) fury if we failed to catch his flubs. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what the accuser had in mind.

Are you questioning the accuracy of the accusation? OK, it came from President Donald Trump’s buddy Steve Bannon, who opened his mouth while in Arizona to pay tribute to Charlie Kirk, the assassinated leader of Turning Point. The podcast host was saying to Bannon that Kirk’s ideas about marrying early and having lots of children were actually not popular with young people, which prompted Bannon to blame teachers for brain-washing their students. Here’s what he said:

“…..those kids — look, from kindergarten all the way up, they are essentially, you know, a third of the teachers are terrorists that are trying to form them.”

Predictably, the right-wing podcaster didn’t challenge Bannon’s wild accusation or even ask him what he meant by ‘terrorist,’ so I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Bannon meant that teachers were teaching values that Bannon disapproves of, like tolerance and cooperation. I have seen lots of teachers work hard to inculcate such values, and, if that’s ‘terrorism,’ I approve.

Mocking Bannon is a woefully insufficient response, however, because his blatant teacher-bashing is part of the right wing’s persistent, harsh, and (unfortunately) often successful campaign to bring down public education.

And Bannon’s not even a field general in this war. He’s clearly outranked by Oklahoma’s State Superintendent of Education Ryan Walters, who in January reacted to violence at the Mardi Gras in New Orleans. You may recall that, early on New Year’s Day an army veteran carrying an ISIS flag drove his pickup truck down Bourbon Street and killed 14 people and injured dozens more before the police killed him. It was labeled a possible terrorist incident, prompting Mr. Walters to go off: “We also have to take a look at how are these terrorists coming from people that live in America. …. You have schools that are teaching kids to hate their country, that this country is evil. You have the teachers’ unions pushing this on our kid (sic).”

Mocking the hyperbole of school critics like Walters and Bannon is ineffective, because culture warriors are immune to humor. Instead, they are seriously opposed to just about everything that some of us believe is in the public interest, such as public education, public transportation, public libraries, public parks, public health, and so on. They recognize that public education is a cornerstone of our democracy, and they are going after it, with sledgehammers and other implements of destruction, including lies and absurd accusations from the likes of Bannon and Walters.

(They are anti-public-everything, acronym APE. Don’t be an APE!)

Early in September, the New York Times reporter Dana Goldstein did a deep dive into the impact of vouchers, education savings accounts, tax credit scholarships, and other programs that divert funds from public schools to non-public schools. The entire article is well worth your time.

The number of students whose parents are using these programs has doubled since 2019, nearly all in Republican-led states. Five years ago, only about 20,000 students had education savings accounts (ESA), which allow deducting any ‘educational’ expense from one’s taxes; today, more than 500,000 families have ESA’s.

In the past, eligibility for most of these programs was means-tested because the stated goal was to help low income families. That’s changed, and in the new programs, any family can take advantage, regardless of income.

This ain’t cheap. Indiana’s program, for example, is costing more than $600 million a year, dollars that might have gone to public education.

Joining the 14 states with voucher-type programs is your federal government, because the “Big Beautiful Bill” passed by Congress earlier this year includes a $5,000 voucher.

Do these voucher programs work? The evidence is mixed, at best.

Are they popular with voters? Here the answer is crystal clear: NO! In the 17 opportunities that voters have had to weigh in on vouchers since 1970, they’ve said NO, including three votes in Republican-led states in 2024.

For a critical view of what’s going on, read David Osborne’s analysis here.

If you support public education, begin by thanking teachers. Take a minute to picture the teachers who changed your lives for the better…and then to ask yourselves if you ever said ‘Thank you’ to those women and men. If it’s too late to connect directly with them, you might write something about them and share it with others.

That’s only the first step. Consider attending school board meetings, perhaps even running for election to your local school board. You might join the parent-teacher organization, or volunteer as a tutor. You might contribute supplies, or help with school fund-raising efforts. Let your elected officials at all levels know that you support public education. If you’re a public school parent, move beyond ‘involvement’ to ‘engagement,’ by getting to know your children’s teachers.

(I’ve written about this in more detail in “Addicted to Reform: A 12-Step Program to Rescue Public Education,” which is available at most public libraries, some bookstores, and Amazon. It’s reviewed positively here and negatively here.)

It’s not pie-in-the-sky idealism to believe that a strong public education system is the road to equality and citizenship, or that the real safeguard of democracy is education. Those insights came from FDR and Martin Luther King, Jr., among others.

Please make certain that you are registered to vote, and that your friends and neighbors are as well. This attack on public education is serious, folks. Don’t take our democracy for granted.

Guess Who’s NOT Coming to School!

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

American students are skipping school in record numbers, a crisis that is so acute that it became the lead story in The New York Times recently, as well as the subject of the Times’s podcast series, The Daily.   The lead story is long on anecdotes, graphs, and other data. It’s also chock full of quotes from experts, but no students are heard from. No teachers either.

Another serious problem with the reporting, in my view, is the lack of context. The reporters place the blame for the epidemic of chronic absenteeism on COVID, making no mention of three other deep-rooted causes, 1) the right wing’s long campaign against ‘government schools,’ which has helped create widespread distrust of many other public institutions; 2) a decades-long obsession with standardized testing that has made many kids feel like numbers, objects to be manipulated; and 3) a mental health crisis among adolescents, caused in part by their heightened anxiety about school shootings, that makes many kids genuinely afraid to go to school. 

Let’s start at the top. Ronald Reagan routinely referred disparagingly to public schools as ‘government schools,’ meaning, of course, that they could not be trusted.  The MAGA movement has amplified that cry, politicizing education, taking over school board meetings (and actual school boards as well), driving away qualified veteran educators, and causing would-be teachers to decide to find other lines of work.  Schools that ban books and restrict discussions are not exactly welcoming environments for young people.  

Although the trend to see students in terms of their test scores probably dates back to the 1988 publication of “A Nation at Risk,” George W. Bush and Barack Obama ramped it up, big time. In other words, Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the second major cause of absenteeism.  Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” and Obama’s “Race to the Top” prioritized student test scores in math and English–at the expense of almost everything else.  Most public schools either reduced or eliminated extra-curricular activities like drama, journalism, and music.  Recess and free play also went by the wayside, as did ‘non-essential’ courses like foreign languages and social studies. The message to students was clear: the school cares only about my test score, not me….so why bother?

Cause #3: Yes, COVID shut down many public schools, depriving young people of the opportunities to socialize, to get accustomed to being with others and dealing with whatever issues arose, but the rash of widely-publicized school shootings–and government’s failure to address the crisis–have created another legitimate reason for students to opt out of school.  I met recently with a high school history teacher, a 17-year veteran, who told me his students regularly practice how to respond to ‘an incursion.’ Mental health challenges are genuine, widespread, and perfectly understandable, he told me.   

The next day I met with another teacher, a young woman who is just finishing her 5th year teaching 4th grade in a charter school in Brooklyn. Students at her school have learned what to do if trouble arises. She also said absenteeism is an issue, and she’s certain that it will spike dramatically in a week or two–once the state tests are over.  Both teachers are concerned about the quality of incoming teachers–the pool of talent is smaller and less impressive.  I infer from their comments that this development is a consequence of the attacks on teaching and teachers–“Who in their right mind would want to teach today?” is the question that hung in the air.

If I were reporting this story, I would do what we did in 2012, talk to young people. This school district on the Mexican border had an abysmal dropout rate, so its new superintendent went out and found kids who had dropped out and asked what it would take to get them to come back.  More challenges, he learned, and so he created opportunities for kids to earn college credits while going to high school.  A few years later, a bunch of high school seniors received both their HS diplomas and their 2-year community college degrees.  Remarkable story, and a win-win-win for everyone. Please click on the link to see what I mean.

Adults concerned about chronic absenteeism ought to be trying to get young people to want to come to school regularly, not simply ‘to attend school.’  To do that, we need to make schools interesting, challenging, and safe.  Stop treating kids as numbers (their standardized test scores).  Stop asking “How smart are you?” and ask a different question about each child: ‘How are you smart?”  

Here are four specific steps that will bring kids back:  1) Restore the full range of extra-curricular opportunities–because most kids come to school so they can do interesting stuff with their friends!  2) Homeroom in middle and high school should become an extended period, not just a quick five minutes when attendance is taken. Make daily homeroom a pressure-free time when students can catch up with friends, forge new relationships, finish homework, or even take naps.  “Home” is the operative word here.  3) Expand course offerings to include some college classes and vocational training opportunities. 

Step number 4 deserves its own paragraph!  To end chronic absenteeism, make schools safe. The first step toward safety is to acknowledge that school safety is a 3-part concept. Students deserve schools that are physically, emotionally, and intellectually safe.  Emotional safety means that bullying and cyber-bullying are not tolerated.  Intellectually safe schools celebrate curiosity.  In these schools, adults encourage students to admit when they do not understand or are confused, often by modeling that behavior. Intellectually safe schools don’t treat kids as numbers but as growing and changing individuals.  (And young people who are treated with respect are unlikely to bring their dad’s AK-47 to school.)

More can be done to bring young people back to school, but concerned local educators can take those four steps to begin the process. 

How to Teach Children to Read

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

A teacher is standing in front of her class of First Graders, most of them 6-year-olds, a few age five.  She holds up a sign:   

“Who can read this?”

Almost every hand goes up, and a few children call out the answer.

“That’s very good. I thought that you would know that word. Maybe you recognize the sign because you see it on lots of street corners.  It says ‘Stop,’ but now let’s take it apart, letter by letter.  The first letter, S, makes a sound.  What sound does an S make?”  

She then goes through the sounds the other three letters make, the children make the sounds, and they put the word together.  

Then she holds up a slightly different sign, one that reads STOPE. She tells them how it is pronounced and explains that, when the letter E follows a vowel, that vowel ‘says its own name.’  She tells them how to pronounce it, and then she writes several words on the blackboard: NICE, HOSE, and CASE.  The children sound them out.

That teacher is using a method known as Phonics, more formally called Phonics and Phonemic Awareness as the basis for her instruction.  Basically, it recognizes that letters have sounds associated with them, and that those sounds often change when letters are rearranged.  She’s teaching her students to decode or decipher words.

Phonics is one of two competing approaches to teaching reading.  The other method, Whole Language, stresses recognition of words rather than sounding them out, and using their context, including pictures, to decipher or guess at meaning.  The battle over how to teach reading has been going on forever.  Should children learn to take words apart, letter by letter, or should they be taught to recognize words–the ‘look-say’ approach?  

Back to that classroom:  “OK, now let’s see what happens if we move the letters around.”

She holds up this sign:   

“Same four letters.  Let’s try to read it by sounding out each letter. Start with the first one, where I put the S at the end.  What sound does T make?”

The children are delighted when she brings out four more versions of the familiar sign:   

For the next ten or fifteen minutes, the children take those words apart, then put the sounds together, eventually reading all the words.  OPTS is the most challenging because the children don’t know the word, leading to a discussion about OPTIONS, a noun, and OPT, a verb.  The teacher doesn’t move on until she’s sure everyone understands. Perhaps she challenges her students to use those words in conversation during the day, or at  home that night.

The supporters of Whole Language caricature Phonics, the method this teacher is using, as an endless series of “cat-hat-rat-sat-bat” drills, a cold and boring approach that drives children away from literature, while extolling Whole Language and its clone, Balanced Literacy, as warm, humanistic, and child-friendly.  

As its most prominent gurus, Kenneth Goodman and Yetta Goodman, argued in 1991, “Whole Language classrooms liberate pupils to try new things, to invent spellings, to experiment with new genres, to guess at meanings in their readings, to read and write imperfectly.”  

True believers in the Phonics camp point to ‘invented spellings’ and guessing at meanings as proof that Whole Language is a romantic fantasy that fails to give children the skills they will need as adults–while at the same time lying to them by telling them that they can read.  

Whole Language advocates are quick to emphasize the limitations of Phonics. English, they point out, is more idiosyncratic than most languages.  And they are correct: Just say these three words aloud: anger, ranger, and hanger. According to the rules of Phonics, they should rhyme, but they don’t. Likewise, good and mood should rhyme, but do not. Even Horace Mann, the founder of American public education, was anti-Phonics because of English’s irregularities. 

Irregularities aside, however, reading does not ‘come naturally,’ as many Whole Language devotees assume. It must be taught. For this, the research is clear:  Phonics and Phonemic Awareness are the bedrock of learning to read.  That is, they are the engine, and Whole Language is the chassis. In sum, both approaches are necessary, but the engine–Phonics–is first among equals.  And good teachers know this…

Back in the classroom, the teacher holds up another image: 

“Who knows what this sign says?  Can anyone use it in a sentence? (Many hands go up.)  That’s good.”

After sounding out the two letters and putting the word together, the teacher asks the children, “What happens to GO if we replace the G with S or N?”

She writes SO and NO on the blackboard, next to GO, which the children figure out almost immediately.  

“But letters can be tricky things, children. What sound does ‘O’ make in STOP? Keep that in mind.” 

She replaces the G with the letter T.  Some students automatically rhyme it with GO and SO, pronouncing it ‘TOE.’  Now she explains that in this new word, TO, the letter O has a different sound.  

“So we see that the letter O can make different sounds. English is tricky, but we will learn all the tricks.  Read this sentence: ‘SO I said NO, you must GO TO the STORE.’”

“Which letter isn’t following the rules?”

They all seem to understand that TO is the exception. She explains that they will have to learn to recognize words like TO if they want to be good readers.

“I warned you that letters were tricky!  But there are ways to figure out most letters, rules that work most of the time.  But not all the time, because English breaks a lot of its own rules.  I promise you we will have fun figuring all this out…”

The current Reading Wars escalated in 1955 when Rudolf Flesch published “Why Johnny Can’t Read,” an all-out attack on ‘Whole Language.’  The world of education ignored him. In 1969 Harvard professor Jeanne Chall’s “Learning to Read: The Great Debate” presented compelling data demonstrating the importance of Phonics, but once again the system shrugged.  

Inevitably, the crusade to dominate reading instruction became politicized.  Those who supported Phonics were most likely Republicans, conservatives, and perhaps evangelical Christians as well. Television pastor Pat Robertson made teaching Phonics central to his platform when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, and political activist Phyllis Schlafly pushed as hard for Phonics-based instruction as she did against the Equal Rights Amendment.  “Through the late 1980s and into the 1990s, religious right organizations such as Schlafly’s Eagle Forum and Robertson’s Christian Coalition pushed legislators in Tennessee and elsewhere to enact Phonics instruction in public schools. By the early 1990s, Sing, Spell, Read and Write — the Phonics-based reading program, published by Pearson and promoted by Pat Robertson — was approved for use in a dozen states, including Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi,” David Waters notes in an analysis for The Institute for Public Service in Memphis. 

If, on the other hand, you believed in Whole Language, you were certainly a liberal, probably a Democrat, and perhaps even an atheist or an agnostic. 

Calling these two camps religious cults is not a stretch, because both approaches inspire devotion bordering on fanaticism….and have complete disdain for the other.  

That First Grade teacher often takes pages out of the Whole Language playbook to talk about words that don’t follow the rules of Phonics.  

One day she writes these sentences on the blackboard: COME HERE!  WHERE ARE THE MACHINES?

“OK, kids. On your toes now, because only one of these words follows the rules.”

She asks them to pronounce each word according to the rules they have learned. They do, pronouncing COME with a long O, WHERE with a long E, ARE with a long A, and MACHINES with a long I.  Then she pronounces them correctly, cracking up the children.

“I told you English was tricky and sneaky, but we won’t let it beat us!”

To finish the lesson, she writes HERE on the blackboard and asks the children to sound it out, which they do with ease.  Then she puts a W in front of HERE and challenges them to sound it out.  They rhyme it with HERE.  She replaces the W with T, making THERE, and again asks her students to sound it out.  WHERE and THERE, she explains, break the rules. They will have to learn to recognize them. 

Reading politics reached the Oval Office when George W. Bush became President. In 1999 Congress had appointed a National Reading Panel to study the issue, but the Bush Administration controlled the publication of the results. The panel of scholars issued a 449-page report promoting a balanced reading program that included but should not be dominated by  systematic instruction in Phonics. “Phonics should not become the dominant component in a reading program, neither in the amount of time devoted to it nor in the significance attached,” the report concluded.  

However, Bush’s political operatives took charge of the Report’s summary–arguably the only section anyone reads.  Their summary sent a very different message: Phonics rules!  As Waters noted, “the report’s 32-page summary, widely reported by the media and mailed to every school district in the country, focused on Phonics. It used the word ‘Phonics’ 89 times, and the word ‘balanced’ only once.”

The politicization of reading continued in President Bush’s signature legislation, the “No Child Left Behind Act of 2000.” It called for an emphasis on Phonics and ‘scientifically based reading research’ (a term found in the law and accompanying regulations more than 110 times). NCLB spawned “Reading First,” a pro-Phonics federal program that collapsed amidst financial scandals, although, predictably, the Phonics Republicans and the Whole Language Democrats differed as to who was at fault.

At some point our teacher creates a list of other rule-breaking words to learn.These so-called ‘sight words’ include who, to, are, been, because, machine, and police.  The list will grow throughout the year.

Then she opens another door. She invites the children to tell the class some words that they want to be able to read, perhaps words they have heard at home or on the street.  Words they are curious  about.  By meeting them where they are and encouraging their curiosity, she’s empowering them.  That’s a powerful motivation for young children, a strong sense of mastery.

(That teacher isn’t one person but a mashup of dozens of marvelous teachers I encountered as a reporter, all but one of them women. The man was Johnny Brinson, a First Grade teacher in Washington, DC. Among the women was my own First Grade teacher, Mrs. Peterson, whom I spent a day with when I was in my late 30’s and working for NPR.)

By all rights, teaching all First Graders to read with understanding ought to be a national priority.  Set the bar there and then devote whatever resources are necessary to help children get where they want to be.  

Sadly, we have not done that. Instead, even though 5-, 6-, and 7-year-old children are ready to learn and eager to be challenged, we have lowered the bar.  For the past 20 years or so, our stated national goal has been to have children reading at “Grade Level” when they finish Third Grade. That’s a 2-year lowering of expectations. 

So, instead of harnessing the incredible curiosity and energy of our 6-year-olds, we said to them and their teachers, “No rush. Take your time.”   That goal was set during the Administration of George W. Bush, and—surprise!!–lowering expectations has not worked.  Reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have flatlined: Fourth Graders in 1992 scored 217 on NAEP’s 0-500 scale, and in 2020, the Fourth Graders’ score was 215.  But rather than questioning the wisdom of the ‘low expectations’ policy, many politicians and policymakers have chosen to blame the victims–by requiring them to repeat Third Grade. Currently, 18 states and the District of Columbia require retention for students reading below proficiency by the time they complete 3rd grade. Another 10 states, including Texas, New Jersey and Maryland, allow retention but do not require it. 

The deep thinkers who decided to delay things also came up with a slogan: “In the first three grades, children learn to read; from then on, they read to learn.”  Treating reading as an end, instead of a means to an end, is dangerous nonsense!  Children learn to read so they can learn more about the world around them. Both at the same time!  Imagine if those same deep thinkers were put in charge of teaching children to walk.  They’d have kids walking in place for a year or two (learning to walk), after which they could walk around (walking to get somewhere). 

Today’s politicians and policymakers are wildly enthusiastic about what is being called ‘the Science of Reading,’ and there’s a real danger that the pendulum is swinging back to Phonics. As I read the situation, some people see the Science of Reading as a way to make money selling schools stuff that’s ‘guaranteed’ to teach children to read. This is dangerous nonsense. Reading is as much art as science, and phonics is necessary but not sufficient. Rather than spending money on packaged curriculua, states and school districts ought to devote resources to retraining elementary teachers in how to teach reading, because most teacher training institutions ignored phonics, favoring instead a word recognition approach known as Whole Language.

When the year is nearly over,  the First Grade teacher asks her children a question: ‘Who are the three or four fastest runners in the class?’   The children call out five or six different names.  ‘OK, now who are the three or four best singers in the class?’ Again names are called out.  ‘And one more question. Who are the three or four tallest kids in our class?’  More names.

‘I want to tell you why I asked those questions.’  The children look at her expectantly.  ‘Some of  you are taller than others, some of you can run faster, and some of you can sing better, but that’s just how things are turning out. It’s not because you are better. You’re just different.  The same thing is true with reading. All of you are readers, good readers, but some of you can read better than others….because you got lucky at birth, not because you are a better person.”  

(She is correct.  About 40% of children are ‘born readers,’ able to absorb the basics of Phonics and able to decode and comprehend with ease.  Everyone has to learn to read because reading is not a natural act, but some learn faster and more easily than others.)

“All of you are readers now,  all of you. And nobody can take that away from you….ever.  So please keep on reading, and writing, and thinking, and asking questions.” 


Give children a couple of years with teachers like her, and they will be ready for almost anything, because she understands that, to become effective readers, her students need to understand that letters have sounds associated with them, and that most, but clearly not all, words follow certain rules. For her, and for good teachers of reading everywhere, decoding and higher test scores are not the goal; the goals are comprehension, confidence, and enjoyment. 

Improving Public Schools: A Final Thought

John Merrow Uncategorized , , , ,

Back in August I began using this space to suggest simple changes that would, I believe, improve public schools significantly.  Five months and fourteen suggestions later, it’s now time to wrap this up, not because I’ve run out of ideas but because I’m hoping some readers will take this list of ideas and run with it. Perhaps some of you will work with your local school boards to implement these changes. I hope that, if candidates for school board start ranting about “DEI” or “Critical Race Theory,” you will confront them, because those aren’t real issues; what matters are specific changes that can make schools more interesting, challenging, and effective.  Perhaps some of you might even run for your local school board!  

With that in mind, I have one final suggestion: Consider adopting as your guiding principle the wisdom of Aristotle: “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.”  Applying that to schools and education suggests to me that:

   *Because we want children to be able to write well, they need to write often in their classes.  

  *Because we want them to be comfortable speaking in public, they need to practice that in school. 

  *Because we want them to work well with others as adults, they ought to be working together on projects, teams, plays, bands, et cetera, in school. 

  *Because we want them to be successful as adults in a rapidly changing world, they ought to learn at least two languages in school. 

*And so forth….

Here, briefly, are the other suggestions: 1) Looping, which I expanded upon a short time later in Looping (revisited).  Looping means a teacher moving up with her or his students.  It’s quite common in other countries because it’s been shown to improve both student learning and behavior, for openers.  

2)Play. Simply put, kids need to be kids.  And for those who are concerned about learning, stop worrying because free play contributes to improved learning.

3) Practice Democracy. Apply Aristotle here: If we want children to function well in a democratic society, they need practice.  Right now, schools are essentially undemocratic–by design. That’s the worst possible preparation for adulthood.  And giving young people more ‘agency’ over their own learning actually works!  

4) Business Cards for Teachers.  If you are a professional, you carry business cards, which you give out to people you want to stay in contact with. Teachers are professionals!  Treat them as such.  

5) Involve Outsiders. The vast majority of households do not have children in public schools,  and schools need public support.  The best advertisement for public education is the kids.  Let them strut their stuff!  

6) Multiple ‘Talent Nights.’  This is an easy way to make parents feel at home in school.  Education is a team sport, and educators need to welcome parents, not treat them as extraneous (or worse).

7) Extended Homeroom. Right now most homeroom periods are short, really just a way for administrators to take attendance.   After Covid, kids need more down time.  Extending homeroom into a full period provides that.

8) Ask the Right Question.  I’ve been pushing this for a long time, but it’s worth repeating: The most important question to ask about all children is ‘How Are They Smart?’ and not ‘How Smart Are They?’ because every child has skills, abilities, and interests that can be tapped into and developed.  

9) “Education Grand Rounds.”  Teachers need opportunities to watch each other at work so they can improve their own practice.

10) “Making Stuff”.  There’s nothing more satisfying than creating something useful.  Bring back wood shop!   

11) Make the School Safe. Schools need to be physically, emotionally, and intellectually safe.  Stop focusing only on physical safety. In intellectually safe schools, it’s cool to be curious, and it’s OK to admit ‘I don’t understand.’  In emotionally safe schools, bullying is not tolerated…and adults and student leaders step up to prevent it. 

12) Serve Your Community  This is NOT the same as ‘Community Service.’ The distinction makes all the difference.

13) Ban Cell Phones. Completely!  That’s right, ban them completely!

14) Acknowledge the “Opportunity Gap”.  Most school districts and policy makers focus their attention on ‘The Achievement Gap,’ but, if we close the “Opportunity Gap” (and its companion, the “Expectations Gap”), outcomes will improve across the board.  One way to do this is to adopt a proven curriculum like Core Knowledge, EL Education, or the Comer School Development Program. Another option to explore: become a Community School.

Reactions from readers convinced me that I stopped making recommendations too soon, so here are three more: 

15) Change the opening time for adolescents, who need more sleep and aren’t getting it.  This important piece by Dr. Mary Carskadon and Lynne Lamberg (a reader of this blog) is both comprehensive and persuasive.  Here’s more on the issue.

16) Improve school food because better nutrition is a cost-effective way of improving students’ life chances, and because, sadly, for many kids their school meals are the only healthy ones they get. Changing the cafeteria is a good opportunity to Practice Democracy (suggestion #3).

17) Teach reading effectively by avoiding the extremes. Don’t let the ‘Reading Science’ craze push schools into going mad for phonics. Phonics is necessary but not sufficient, because our English language is complex and contradictory. (eg, why don’t ‘anger,’ ‘danger,’ and ‘hanger’ rhyme?)

Other changes, especially reducing class size and repairing or replacing dangerously dilapidated facilities, are also called for, but these will cost real money. None of the 17 changes I am suggesting will cost school districts big bucks, but some do involve changes in habits and schedules, which often makes adults uncomfortable.  That is, these changes are simple, but that does not mean they will be easy. I believe, however, that they are the path forward, toward schools that are effective and challenging, places that children will want to be.

5 Ways to Change the Status Quo: Interview with Phillip Kovacs

John Merrow Op-ed, school reform , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that I’ve been interviewing a lot of folks who are well known in education, Debbie Meier, Margaret Spellings, Diane Ravitch, Pat Callan and others. Many readers have posted comments, which I read with interest. Sometimes I wonder about the writers, and sometimes I reach out.

This post came from my interest in one reader’s comments to my recent post on innovation in schools.  His name is Philip Kovacs, and he’s a former high school English teacher who now teaches would-be teachers at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. I also know that he has a PhD in Educational Policy Studies, a 6 month-old son, and some strong convictions about public education. (The latter is the focus of the interview, although the proud new Dad manages to work his son into the conversation a couple of times).

The Interview

So tell me what you believe, and why.

In my dissertation I argue for keeping public schools public, but after four years working with local public schools, I’m open to alternatives. I am now working on starting a project-based lab school.

How did you find Learning Matters?

The More things ChangeIt was research into the Gates Foundation that brought me to your website in the first place. The Foundation funds an unbelievable number of projects, some of which argue against one another, though the larger of the funded organizations agree on key points, none of which, in my humble opinion, are very innovative. I do not, for the record, think Bill Gates is controlling your content!

I am now editing a book about the Gates Foundation’s involvement in educational reform. I am 100% sure that the edited volume is going to anger the educational “right” and “left.”

You sound as if you want to anger both ends of the spectrum.

I guess I do, now that you mention it. Three years ago I helped about 30 scholars, teachers, and other concerned individuals create and post a petition calling for an end to No Child Left Behind. Continue reading →

Serious Fun?

John Merrow Op-ed, teaching , , , ,

The shrill whistle pierced the humid August air, and the ten players, all African American high school students, gathered around the referee. The ref pointed to a young man who was wearing a t-shirt.

“Malik, here’s the word. ‘Ambiguous.’ Define it and use it in a sentence.”  Serious Fun?

The young man did so in a strong voice, and the ref called over to the scorer’s desk, “That’s a point for the shirts.”  Then he turned to the other team (the skins), picked out a player, and gave him a word, “Optimism.”

When the player confused the noun with the adjective, the ref turned to a player on the shirts, who gave the correct answer.  “Another point for the shirts,” the ref called.  “Now let’s play ball.”

Continue reading →